1 / 10

PHY Abstraction for HEW System Level Simulation

PHY Abstraction for HEW System Level Simulation. Authors:. Date: 2014-01-20. Introduction. Physical layer abstraction is a key enabling technique for system simulation. A few flavors of effective SINR mapping have been overviewed and evaluated in [1].

chynna
Download Presentation

PHY Abstraction for HEW System Level Simulation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PHY Abstraction for HEW System Level Simulation Authors: Date: 2014-01-20 Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  2. Introduction • Physical layer abstraction is a key enabling technique for system simulation. • A few flavors of effective SINR mapping have been overviewed and evaluated in [1]. • Remaining questions about ESM performance to be answered this meeting. • High modulation • LDPC Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  3. ESM for PHY Abstraction • Effective SINR is an average mapped equalizer-output SINR over all subcarriers. • Hedge factors alpha and beta can be used to calibrate and compensate any residual errors. • OFDM transmission is modeled as an AWGN channel with one effective SINR. Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  4. Effective SINR Mapping Functions Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  5. Performance of PHY Abstraction • 11ac, 1x1, 8000 bit per packet, MCS0-9, BCC and LDPC • Channel D-NLOS, AWGN • PHY abstraction: • RBIR/RBIR-BICM for MCS0-9, MMIB for MCS0-7 • EESM is not covered • No tune-up for PHY abstraction (α=1, β=1). • Effective SNR vs. PER curves for D-NLOS are referenced to that of AWGN channels. • The closer, the better! • Observations: • All three methods (MMIB, RBIR-CM, RBIR-BICM) provides good PER results referenced to AWGN. • ESM performs better for LDPC than BCC • D-NLOS LDPC PER curves are closer to AWGN. Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  6. BCC • Small mismatch between effective SNR vs. PER for fading channels (D-NLOS) vs. AWGN. Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  7. LDPC • Negligible mismatch between effective SNR vs. PER for fading channels (D-NLOS) vs. AWGN. Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  8. Observation • MMIB/RBIR are both good candidates for physical layer abstraction. • RBIR assuming CM and BICM performs very close (closer than previously shown in [1]). • ESM based PHY abstraction performs better (closer to AWGN) for LDPC than BCC. • MMIB/EESM is less ready to use for various kinds of modulation and coding schemes. Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  9. Summary • Studies show ESM as good methods for performance prediction. • Suggest to use RBIR/RBIR-BICM as PHY abstraction methods in the system simulation. Yakun Sun, et. Al.

  10. References [1] 11-13-1390-00-0hew-phy-abstraction-for-hew-system-level-simulation Yakun Sun, et. Al.

More Related